JulianLS

Source: NHK.

Not sure why this wasn't done immediately after the generator failure......

New power lines being planned for cooling system

The operator of the quake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says it is trying to install new power lines to reactivate its cooling systems in a desperate effort to stop the ongoing radioactive leakage.

Tokyo Electric Power Company says it wants to start the work to install the new lines as early as Thursday morning. Emergency diesel power generators in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant failed to work because of a power blackout following the earthquake. They were also damaged by the ensuing tsunami.

The troubled diesel power generators caused the cooling systems to fail, which then affected the Number-1, -2 and -3 reactors. All the spent fuel rods housed in the 6 reactor buildings were also affected.

As a result, the rods remained hot and exposed above the surface of the coolant water. Damage and melting may have occurred.

The top priority at the moment is restoring the functions of the cooling systems now that radiation is continuing to leak from the plant.

Tokyo Power Electric Company says it is considering laying new power lines into the plant directly from cables of another power company.

The company says it hopes to reactivate the cooling systems by connecting the cables to a makeshift switchboard and using them as an emergency power source for the systems.

But the company says it was unable to carry out the work on Wednesday because of high readings of radiation in the compound.

The company says it will try to complete the installation as soon as possible after reviewing the procedures in order to keep the workers' radiation exposure to a minimum.

Thursday, March 17, 2011 05:35 +0900 (JST)

Tywais - get a [#10171] You do not have permission to view this attachment. when trying to access your image watercanon.jpg (8.76K)

It's working for me. It's a direct uploaded attachment from my PC and not from an external site.

I also get the #10171 error when trying to view this attachment - or indeed any attached directly uploaded to the TV site. Don't know why, I am logged in. Tried looking through the help pages but didn't find a solution....

I'm not a scientist or even a science type.. I'll leave that to Tywais...

But from what I've read, there's some potential for an explosion to occur spontaneously in a TMI type meltdown situation if the fuel pellets come out of their enclosure, fall and melt/molt together, and then, potentially... BOOM... Then the issue would be, is the blast and ensuing emissions contained within the reactor's containment structure.

I am not saying that one of the reactors at Fukushima could not explode, it is a possibility even though the current thermal buildup is due to radioactive decay of fuel rods rather than a moderated neutron chain reaction (ie critical reaction). But perhaps a melt down (like TMI) is much more likely than a core explosion (like Chernobyl).

Yes, you are right, there is that possibility. But that is not what happened at Chernobyl. Well, the boom happened, but not the meltdown. It went boom before it had a chance to melt down. That said, the boom at Chernobyl was a thermal boom not a nuclear one... so in that sense, another Chernobyl is possible.....

TEPCO said the problem could develop into a critical ''meltdown'' situation, in which fuel rods melt and are destroyed, emitting massive amounts of radioactive materials into the air.

What happened to "there is no chance of another Chernobyl"?

Chernobyl didn't melt down, it exploded. There are lots of differences at Chernobyl.... a much bigger reactor, design flaws including a positive void coefficient, virtually all control rods removed from the core at the time (the opposite of a shutdown), and poorly designed control rods made with graphite (a moderator which increases the reaction) tips that got stuck only a little bit into the core, thus having the opposite effect to that desired. Which resulted in an ongoing critical nuclear reaction that rapidly (seconds not minutes) lead to an explosion of the core. Three mile island melted down, whereas Chernobyl blew up.

The guys at Fukushima are struggling to deal with the residual thermal output, which is probably at around 7% or less of normal running power, because they cant get enough water through the core. Whereas Chernobyl was operating at only 1% of normal power about an hour before it exploded, and went from 7% to 1000% of normal power output in around 40 seconds because it was still in a critical state, and an unstable one at that.

I am not saying that one of the reactors at Fukushima could not explode, it is a possibility even though the current thermal buildup is due to radioactive decay of fuel rods rather than a moderated neutron chain reaction (ie critical reaction). But perhaps a melt down (like TMI) is much more likely than a core explosion (like Chernobyl).

At the end of the day, it's the impact that is important. Chernobyl (a core explosion) had more impact than TMI (a melt down), so you could look at it that way. But then, there are a set of circumstances where a melt down in Fukushima might have more impact on people than the Chernobyl incident. Whilst Chernobyl was a major disaster, the population density in the close environment was low and experts tend to agree that the actual health impact was actually quite limited given the severity of the event. Yes, it spread radioactive material on a wide area.... but that's exactly what you want with radioactive waste: it spread very finely over a very wide area! It's when its all in one place that its a bigger problem! Bear in mind that it was widely dispersed before it was mined, concentrated, and stuck in a nuclear fuel rod in the first place.... But coming back to the point, a less major event in Japan could in theory have a much greater impact on people. Let's hope that set of circumstances doesn't happen.

That said, it doesnt excuse how they allowed one of the reactor pumps post quake to runout of fuel becuz they werent monitoring it..and thus the reactor ran dry...

Just a guess but I imagine the people looking after the pumps are trying not to get a gamma ray suntan, and are probably sheltering somewhere in between observations.

I suspect that the remaining workers at the site are going through major trauma. When do they sleep? Each one knows, just by being at the site, they're putting their lives in danger. I'm sure lots of emotional scenarios. I don't think it's right for us to sit back in our comfy computer chairs from hundreds of miles away, and belittle their efforts.

Example: generators powering pumps running out of fuel. It could have been negligence, but I think it's more likely they simply didn't have enough fuel on hand. How many thousands of liters of fuel would you predict would be needed at a nuclear power facility - before the earthquake struck? Sure, it's easy to be Monday morning quarterbacks, but those guys are like the Kamikaze fighters of WWII, literally putting their lives on the line to try and make the best of a dire situation.

I agree with some of your post, but not all of it.

Yes, the guys on the ground, risking their lives trying to get the reactors under control, are beyond any criticism. National heroes, no question.

But about the leadership/management, I am less convinced. The "running out of fuel' incident happened long after the earthquake/tsunami. There was plenty of time to ship in more fuel if they were short, it should have been a priority. Tepco has resources, the Japanese govt would surely have given it top priority, and there are a whole bunch of other resources available to get fuel in fast. Including the US military. So the fuel on hand is not that relevant. The issue I think is more because the leadership (whether onsite or within Tepco) seems not to be asking for outside help when it needs it. Whether that is because they think (or thought) they can handle it themselves, or because they did not really want 'outsiders' involved, or just because they are too inexperienced to know when they need help, I cannot say. But I think think their planning seems highly questionable, and it sounds as if they underestimated the seriousness of the situation and were slow to get the resources they needed to control the situation. The Japanese Prime Minister also seems a bit annoyed with how they have dealt with it. I suspect if they had flown in some experts 3 or 4 days ago, maybe some of the problems might have been avoided.

Let's face it, the two plants are very similar, and given the proximity and similar locations, they probably got the same earthquake magnitude and same tsunami wave.

Not necessary. The first reports are that the entry harbor geography played a huge role in how large the final wave was so one site could have had half what another site had.

I understand your point and I did consider that..... a quick look at Google earth showed that the harbour geographies and orientations wrt the wave direction are almost identical...... but then, there is always a random element to everything, so maybe one did get hit worse than the other.

It is quite surprising that they haven't been shipping in as many generators, pumps, and fuel as they can....

Full marks to the guys at Fushima Daini (Fukushima II).... 4 reactors at cold shutdown with no venting and no explosions. The job that those guys did has not received the praise it deserves I feel. They deserve medals!

Let's face it, the two plants are very similar, and given the proximity and similar locations, they probably got the same earthquake magnitude and same tsunami wave. Yet one plant is still struggling with at least 4 reactors (one of which was shut down already), if not all 6, whilst the other has achieved an exemplary shut down of all 4 reactors. One has to put that down to better leadership and better management of the situation at Fukushima Daini.

They could do a lot worse than take the top guys from Daini and put them in charge of Daiichi...... as pointed out on this thread, the Daiichi guys seemed to have made a number of apparent 'mistakes' that perhaps could have been avoided. Reminiscent of Chernobyl.......

Well, I for one wouldn't volunteer to drill a hole in that particular wall, with a potential mixture of hydrogen and oxygen on the other side of it, and on top of a poorly cooled reactor vessel with fuel rods exposed....

In the words of Harry Enfield; "now I don't believe you wanted to be doing that....."

I want to ship some stuff (just household items/personal effects) to the UK. I have about 5 cubic meters.

Does anyone know the approximate cost per cubic meter to ship to the UK? And/or can anyone recommend a reliable and economical shipping company?

I am in Bangkok.

Thanks in advance.

Sounds like the map itself isn't actually installed on your memory card. When you buy the phone, it has the mapping software installed but not the maps themselves. You need to pre-install the map using a PC and the internet, using "nokia map loader" or via ovi store. Once you have done that, the phone doesn't need to connect to download anything.

You also need to download the voice file, for the language that you want, for use during navigation.

Handy tip: the default setting for voice volume is zero, so once you have installed the voice you need to manually set the voioce volume higher. Otherwise you wont hear anything. It catches a lot of people out....

Why not buy one of the latest Nokia phones, they have Nokia/Ovi maps already installed (works pretty well) and nowadays the lifetime navigation licence is included with the phone. You would be getting a smart phone and a satnav, probably at less cost that just a satnav.

The only thing you have to do is make sure that you pre-install the maps you need via PC, so that you are not wasting download over the phone. Its really easy (the thailand map doesnt take much space, about 60 meg only as i recall) and with a 4GB card, you could pretty much download the whole world

I have an older Nokia phone, and use a Holux bluetooth GPS unit (about 2000 baht) and Nokia maps. The licence fee per year is pretty cheap for thailand (700 baht I think) and it works well.

Google maps (android) works pretty well too, but because they don't allow you to pre-install maps via a PC, its always downloaded on the fly, the download costs become exorbitant.

Not quite sure how a 'mechanical problem' has become a pressurization failure but that is the way these threads go. If the cabin pressure exceeds 10,000 feet the passenger masks drop automatically. Pulling the mask to your face will activate the chemical oxygen generator which operates for about 13 minutes. The pilots have full face masks which they put on and immediately start an emergency descent down to 10,000 feet or lower depending on the minimum sector altitude, which is dependent on the height of the terrain. However there are a multitude of possible mechanical problems and this is only one of them.

If you read the OP, it also mentions a flight from Adelaide to Melbourne that had to descend rapidly due to loss of cabin pressure. The discussion refers to that, not the Bangkok flight.

You are right about the 13 mins of oxygen, hence the need to descend below 10,000ft fairly sharpish. But the masks drop if the cabin pressure is lower than the outside pressure at 10,000ft, not when it exceeds it. Put another way, they drop if the plane is at an altitude that exceeds 10,000 ft. I am sure that's what you meant.

What you need to seriously doubt is the efficacy of those yellow dixie cups that drop in the back..

Be assured the pilots have something a bit more substantial than a yellow dixie cup, and who really cares if the passengers and the hosties pass out as long as the pilots are awake.......you will wake up when the pilots DESCEND to 10,000 ft again.

A few years ago there has been a plane crash (in Greece) because not only the passengers but also the pilots

got unconscious.

In the case of the Greek accident, there was no decompression. The aircraft never pressurised in the first place, due to an incorrect instrument setting. That explains why they didn't use their masks, they lost consciousness before they even realised what the problem was.

Understood.

Many thanks once again to you and other posters

No. And you can always use re-entry permits to keep a visa stay alive for short trips (but they cost 1,000 baht each).

Good point, thanks, though if I am going to travel at least once a month anyway, then probably less hassle just to use visa exemption.

BTW, if I enter Thailand by air on visa exemption, would I need to hold an exit air ticket when I enter? The Thai govt website doesnt mention this as a requirement.

Cheers

Thanks for the advice, guys.

The travel is for sightseeing not work - after 20 years of airport - hotel - office - airport, I am taking some time out to see the real Asia.

I think I have to forget option 2 (double entry) and option 3 (education visa) as single entry visa's would preclude me travelling in and out of thailand.

Most likely my trips are going to be in and out of Suvarnabhumi. Are they likely to give a warning stamp after frequent entries there?

Thanks again.

Would very much appreciate some visa advice from the experts...

I am currently residing in Thailand with an education visa, based on the fact that my kids were attending school in thailand. However, they have recently returned to the UK to go to school.

I would like to remain in thailand for say another 4-6 months and am wondering what my best options. I am a UK citizen, 47 yrs old.

I am considering:-

1) Leaving and entering thailand as a tourist every 30 days as I intend to explore the region anyway. My understanding from the thai website is that Uk citizens can get visa exemption for 30 days, but would they let me to this 6 times in succession? This would be my prefered option as I wouldnt have to go through the hassle of applying for visas and I am intending to travel anyway.

2) Applying for 60 day visas in eg. Singapore. Again, i would have to do this 3 times for 6 months (or twice if I extend each to 90 days), does it get difficult to repeat?

3) Applying to join a thai language course or thai culture course and applying for another 1 year education visa (this time with myself being the student!) but am not sure whether I would qualify given I already have had a one year education visa as a parent. BTW, I have maintained THB500k in a bank account over the past 3 months, as I know this is a requirement.

Many thanks in advance.

To clarify the desire for tan skin amongst farangs...

This was not always the case. 100+ years ago, European's favoured desired white skin too.... Elizabeth I put more white powder on her face than any Isaan girl; Victorians carried parasols like thai women do today; and anyone who knows the story "Snow White" will appreciate the association of fairness with beauty.

Why did this change? (1) the industrial revolution which meant that working in the fields was no longer a major occupation. (2) the invention of the jet aircraft, which meant that now tanned skin was a sign of "rich enough to holiday in southern europe" rather than "has to work in the fields.

So the Asian desire for light skin is nothing unusual...

as the aircraft was already taxiing down the runway, approx. 300 mtr. it is more likely to be a sudden technical failure....!

The news reported that the air traffic controllers notified the pilot of the windy conditions, but the fact that the plane landed safely and traveled for 300 meters seems to indicate the wind was not the sole or necessarily even the primary cause. The fact that the plane landed normally, traveled for 300 meters and then veered into the old tower seems to indicate that something went wrong at that point (perhaps mechanical failure/malfunction, pilot error, debris on the runway, etc.

I witnessed this tragic accident and was listning on my airband radio.

Two airbus aircraft took off on runway 35 in short succession, at the same time as the ATR72 reported downwind for runway 35 and asked for a wind check. The tower informed him the wind as 300/15kts. The pilot reported turning base and was given the wind as 290/18kts and cleared to land. At this time it began to rain heavily and I was interested to see the landing. The pilot seemed to make a textbook landing and continued down the centerline of the runway ,slowing down, to a point apposite the terminal building (maybe 500 meters) when it seemed he applied the brakes and the plane turned 90 degrees left (as if the right hand brakes failed) colliding head on into the old tower building.

...

I agree, given the descriptions of the accident it sounds much more like brake failure on one side than the effects of side wind....